Talk:Instantaneous velocity

Criticism of stub article
I'm not sure that this can survive, but in case it does there are several problems that need to be addressed. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The first line does not say anything. It is equivalent to defining a pink elephant as an elephant that is pink.
 * The article needs copyediting to fix incorrect spellings, sentence fragments, punctuation, etc.
 * Does the "normal velocity formula" mean the formula for constant velocity? Read that sentence again replacing the normal phrase with what it really is.
 * Formulas are given without any explanation of what the terms mean.
 * The section labeled "Proof" doesn't prove anything, nor does it make a statement about what is supposed to be proved.
 * The connection between these difference quotients and the title of the article is not made clear.

Redirect to section Velocity
There is a minor tussle going on here. Please read the target article Velocity properly, and you'll see that "velocity" means nothing other than "instantaneous velocity" when unqualified, and they can be qualified in exactly the same way: "constant instantaneous velocity", "average instantaneous velocity", etc., even though these are unnecessarily cumbersome: precisely because the two are synonyms. The redirect to the subsection "Instantaneous velocity" does not help a reader in any way. —Quondum 22:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (I saw this through WT:MATH.) I concur.  "Instantaneous velocity" is just the usual definition of velocity.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)